Medvedev: Russia to Deploy Missiles in Response to U.S. Missile Shield

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

MOSCOW — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.

That was fast. Do you think we would have ever been reading this story if McCain had been elected?

Yes. I have been following this story for some time as part of my job. The Russians have been making unhappy noises about our missile defense plans for several months now. I pick up about five stories on this per week in the defense/military related press.

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken

Yes. I have been following this story for some time as part of my job. The Russians have been making unhappy noises about our missile defense plans for several months now. I pick up about five stories on this per week in the defense/military related press.

I don't remember when it was, but I also read about it a few months ago, when the missle defense plans were first announced. The russians responded with threats to deploy more missles.

I actually support the missle defense system, and think we should try to convince the russians that it is a good thing for our planet. That technology will lead to the method to break up asteroids that threaten the entire planet, including Russia.

Obama's first crisis sure didn't take very long, did it? But since he's promised to eliminate our missile defenses, that shouldn't be a problem, since Russia is only interested in world peace and is only putting their offensive weapons forward because we've put up a purely defensive weapon as a provocation. Anyone for a chorus of Kumbaya?

Originally Posted by noonwitch

I don't remember when it was, but I also read about it a few months ago, when the missle defense plans were first announced. The russians responded with threats to deploy more missles.

I actually support the missle defense system, and think we should try to convince the russians that it is a good thing for our planet. That technology will lead to the method to break up asteroids that threaten the entire planet, including Russia.

Uh, no. The particle beam systems have limited range and the ballistic interceptors won't have the punch to take out an asteroid. We'll still have to rely on Starfleet Command to protect us from that. They have one use right now, and that is to provide protection from missiles. The Russians don't want us to have this protection for two reasons: First, without their nuclear arsenal, they're a Third World country in every way that matters. Their sole claim to superpower status is their capacity to reach out and touch someone with a thermonuclear bouquet. Second, as an arms exporter, missile technology is one of the few areas where they can make a buck outside of their energy interests. Right now, Russia is proliferating missile technology throughout the world, which, BTW, is a viciously destabilizing influence, but they could care less, and anything that reduces the effectiveness of their exports is bad for the pocketbook.

Obama's first crisis sure didn't take very long, did it? But since he's promised to eliminate our missile defenses, that shouldn't be a problem, since Russia is only interested in world peace and is only putting their offensive weapons forward because we've put up a purely defensive weapon as a provocation. Anyone for a chorus of Kumbaya?

Uh, no. The particle beam systems have limited range and the ballistic interceptors won't have the punch to take out an asteroid. We'll still have to rely on Starfleet Command to protect us from that. They have one use right now, and that is to provide protection from missiles. The Russians don't want us to have this protection for two reasons: First, without their nuclear arsenal, they're a Third World country in every way that matters. Their sole claim to superpower status is their capacity to reach out and touch someone with a thermonuclear bouquet. Second, as an arms exporter, missile technology is one of the few areas where they can make a buck outside of their energy interests. Right now, Russia is proliferating missile technology throughout the world, which, BTW, is a viciously destabilizing influence, but they could care less, and anything that reduces the effectiveness of their exports is bad for the pocketbook.

I don't know much about science, I just kind of figured that one technology will lead to another. I support the research being done by those who do understand science. The missle defense system started out as the Star Wars project, something that people laughed at Reagan over. The next thing you know, we had Patriot missles to use in the first Gulf War.

I don't know much about science, I just kind of figured that one technology will lead to another. I support the research being done by those who do understand science. The missle defense system started out as the Star Wars project, something that people laughed at Reagan over. The next thing you know, we had Patriot missles to use in the first Gulf War.

The Patriots were actually an anti-aircraft system, modified for use against SCUDs, and were only partially successful (but partially is better than not at all). The basic premise, that you can shoot down one moving object with another, remains valid. The use of a missile shield to protect against space-based threats is a possible evolutionary development, but the current systems are not capable of that kind of mission. We'd need to be able to project a particle beam out well beyond the atmosphere for it to be effective, and any projectile would have to be capable of drilling into an asteroid and detonating a payload. That's very different from the kinds of projectiles used for taking out missiles or aircraft, which are much more fragile targets.